This. Also, when the constitution was drafted, the arms kept by civilians/militias were the exact same arms used by formal military. I actually bought an AK just yesterday in anticipation of some BS gun laws that might be laid down by The Big O.

Nice, I had a gut feeling that I should buy an AR15 before they change the laws, and sure enough this shit went down a week after I bought my first AR, I would like to get an AK and a tactical shotgun as well, before any new laws are passed.

I am from San Diego too, and only know one guy with a CC permit. It's because he is richest man in this part of county and has made large donations to sheriff office. Other than if you carry a lot of jewelry or cash on you, to be issued a permit is unlikely.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."

How is that weak? Militias engaged in combat against army regulars, so they clearly had in mind something suitable for that task. Of course they didn't mention what kind of guns you can have. That's INTENTIONAL. The colonists used dramatically superior guns to the British army regulars and they didn't want to limit us to the technology of their day. They didn't even want to limit it to guns if something more suitable came along, which is why they said "arms". Just because it has a detachable magazine does not mean it's no longer an arm suitable for militia duty if needed. Quite the contrary- a 30 round detachable mag makes it MORE suitable for that task in modern times.

If you don't like the wording, petition to have it changed, but don't just ignore it.

And, not that it matters in the slightest, but I'm an officer in the reserves, so don't think you have some kind of special perspective just because you used to be in the military. The only difference it makes is that you're ignoring your oath.

Because it's based on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment and not the prevailing interpretation of the SCOTUS.

That should come in pretty handy. Let us know when you buy an F16 or a Tomahawk.

I have to admit, I have been tempted to jump in this thread and fuck with these nutjobs but I had decided not to. If you argue with idiots, they pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

But, this post made me lol. I notice no replies; your cleverness probably confused them while on their unrestricted weapon access rants for protection against the govt and to help the armed forces if we get invaded lol. Good job.

And, not that it matters in the slightest, but I'm an officer in the reserves, so don't think you have some kind of special perspective just because you used to be in the military. The only difference it makes is that you're ignoring your oath.

Getting a little sensitive there, are we? I'm not claiming any special privileges, just adding context to my response. And hopefully diffusing some of the typical "liberal pussy" bullshit that inevitably comes up when someone dosent agree with you.

I have to admit, I have been tempted to jump in this thread and fuck with these nutjobs but I had decided not to. If you argue with idiots, they pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

But, this post made me lol. I notice no replies; your cleverness probably confused them while on their unrestricted weapon access rants for protection against the govt and to help the armed forces if we get invaded lol. Good job.

Yeah people who are into shooting sports, and gun collecting are all nut jobs, dude there's really no need to be a dick head.

I have to admit, I have been tempted to jump in this thread and fuck with these nutjobs but I had decided not to. If you argue with idiots, they pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

But, this post made me lol. I notice no replies; your cleverness probably confused them while on their unrestricted weapon access rants for protection against the govt and to help the armed forces if we get invaded lol. Good job.

What's funny is that I quickly jump on the side of pro-gun when it comes to self defense or hunting, but that's it. Standing up against tyranny? Spare me.

I've done my share of range time and 3 gun competitions. Turns out a lot of the most rabid gun nuts couldn't run a couple of blocks without passing out. Many don't have any formal training or experience, yet they always talk about "getting into it" if they have to.

Truth is many of us wouldn't stand a chance if we had to go up against a well trained and equipped tactical unit coming for us or our guns. It's pure fantasy land.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."

this

Many people just know the line, "the right to bear arms," and rally behind it on gun issues. The same people probably have no idea of the first part about militias, and the courts decision on the clause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MteK

Because it's based on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment and not the prevailing interpretation of the SCOTUS.

Getting a little sensitive there, are we? I'm not claiming any special privileges, just adding context to my response. And hopefully diffusing some of the typical "liberal pussy" bullshit that inevitably comes up when someone dosent agree with you.

including this

--------

Well said. Sad that your logic and reasoning will fall on deaf ears and perhaps turn into internet flame war.

Yea, I understand and agree. They're more like a double-edged sword to me.

Now if they can change California's CCW laws (plan to move there) I don't like the fact that you have to "justify" why you should have one and the sheriff/police can deny you without cause, then I might have a reason to support them

Pretty much impossible to get CC on San Diego county. I've heard stories of mystical creatures with CC permits, but I am yet to meet one in person. Some dudes at gun shops wear them, but I guess it is allowed as a part of the job. If you convince the state that you *really* need one, they will let you have it.

Honestly, in almost 20 years of living here, I never had a need or even considered having one and I've lived and worked in some sketchy-ass neighborhoods.

Sure, CA makes gun ownership somewhat inconvenient, but it hasn't stopped anyone from owning almost anything they would like. As I found out, there is a loophole for pretty much every law...

Let me know if/when you move here. We'll go make some holes in stationary, as well as flying, objects

What's funny is that I quickly jump on the side of pro-gun when it comes to self defense or hunting, but that's it. Standing up against tyranny? Spare me.

I've done my share of range time and 3 gun competitions. Turns out a lot of the most rabid gun nuts couldn't run a couple of blocks without passing out. Many don't have any formal training or experience, yet they always talk about "getting into it" if they have to.

Truth is many of us wouldn't stand a chance if we had to go up against a well trained and equipped tactical unit coming for us or our guns. It's pure fantasy land.

Me too, but self defense and hunting is not what this about. I own several guns, used to hunt, and have a pistol close by in the house for protection. Texas just enabled carrying concealed weapons in the car with no permit. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people being able to carry guns in all places. That is a catastrophe waiting to happen, but we surely can't restrict that lest we "take away our rights".

What is funny is the "right" to bear arms against a tyrannical government or to support the military used by some in here. The "right" to not have any restrictions on that in terms of clip size because the 2nd amendment is meant for citizens to "have the same arms as the military". I've read alot of BS on the internet before, but this takes the cake.

If that is the case, where are the bazookas on sale in Walmart? RPG's? Patriot missiles? We could put those in the front yard and plant some flowers around them, and they would be a great conversation piece. Those Apache Helicopters and tomahawk missiles the govt will use when tyranny arrives are a bitch, so we need to be legitimately packing. Also, a country that spends 20 times more on the military than the second place country surely needs all the help it can get. It would be a shame if we are not well versed in drone usage when the evil doers pour over the border.

All sarcasm aside, the person that starts a thread like this and the people who rally around it, at this time when a bunch of children are barely in the ground because some nut with access to guns kills them before their lives even begin, deserve whatever I call them.

All sarcasm aside, the person that starts a thread like this and the people who rally around it, at this time when a bunch of children are barely in the ground because some nut with access to guns kills them before their lives even begin, deserve whatever I call them.

I started this thread because I use guns for hunting, self defense, sport, and collecting. I am aware that now is a good time to support the NRA if you are against new restrictions, it's that simple. You come into this thread and act like a total prick and provoke people for no reason, just another keyboard cowboy I guess.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."

Ofcourse..the constitution is a living, evolving body of law..But the couterpoint to your point is that we exist under a state where the "militia" is disbanded but always prepared to band..as a society always having to stay vigilante..the terror acts of 9/11 case and point when the "security of a free state" was overtly challenged.

That interpretation will never waiver to the specific intent of the framers; to allow arms as the means to defend ourselves.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."

That's interesting when this is right in the second paragraph:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Also about the term militia....

Militia was a generic term used back then to refer to the people:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." Richard Henry Lee -1788

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. How does one logically read "the people" to mean "the state sanctioned militia"? The militia was just loosely affiliated citizens who took up arms when necessary. I know I know- it sounds ridiculous at the moment, but where's your crystal ball that guarantees such a thing will never be needed again? It's happening all around the world right now. If you wait long enough, it's almost guaranteed it'll be needed again one day, even if that day is far off.

Since then the law has taken a different interpretation. In any case the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is."

That's politics for you. What did you expect him to say? "Fuck that- we're just going to ignore it"? They have to come up with something if they're going to ignore it. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Like all the other things in the bill of rights, it's the individual people who are having their rights protected.

I believe there is one privately owned F-16 out there. If you wanted to develop your own fighter, I don't think anyone would stop you, but the government is pretty selective on who they'll sell frontline military hardware for, and they paid for the development of those fighters and can do what they want with them. I really wouldn't have much of a problem with people buying exotic military hardware though; those who could afford it have too much to lose to abuse the power. They're really not necessary in a civil conflict though, as governments typically don't want to lay waste to their own nation, and typically some of the military units are on the rebel side.

Don't forget- the colonists were fighting against their own government, and that government had the most powerful military in the world.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Also about the term militia....

Militia was a generic term used back then to refer to the people:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." Richard Henry Lee -1788

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

The topics in these discussion seem to float back and forth across two distinct points and cloud the argument. First is the right to own weapons. The argument presented goes to the heart of that. I don't argue with the fact that this is the current law of the land.

The second is the ability of the government to control or limit what type of weaponry you can have. Well the law is pretty clear here. For example you can't own a grenade or an anti-tank missile, or a machine gun without special permitting. In California you can't own a clip that holds more then 10 rounds. None of this have been overturned by the SCOTUS, so it's clear the government can have a say.

What's being proposed at the Federal level is a ban on high capacity clips. You can argue your rational for why we should or shouldn't do this, but you can't say that it's a constitutional right to own one.

My point is simple, I do not think there is a rational reason for owning high capacity clips or semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines and that no weapon should be able to hold more the 10 rounds at a time. This is based on my reasoning that weapons should be used for personal defense or hunting, both of which can be done effectively with those restrictions in place.